Guide
PBSP-QA software for comprehensive behaviour support plan reviews
In short: PBSP-QA is UQ's Positive Behaviour Support Plan Quality Assessment, a 43-item measure across 11 domains for comprehensive behaviour support plans. NDPRO includes a PBSP-QA review workflow for practices using the instrument. The assessment, the plan version, the reviewer's feedback and the subsequent decision need to remain distinguishable; a score is not regulatory approval.
A completed assessment is only one part of a practice's review process. A Director also needs to know which plan was assessed, who reviewed it, what changes were requested and whether the next version has been considered.
NDPRO brings a PBSP-QA workflow into comprehensive BSP review. This guide explains the instrument's purpose and the practical questions to explore in a product walkthrough. NDPRO is a commercial software provider; this page is not a UQ training resource or an NDIS Commission endorsement.
What is PBSP-QA?
Dr Maria Vassos and Professor Karen Nankervis at The University of Queensland developed the Positive Behaviour Support Plan Quality Assessment. It covers comprehensive plans informed by functional behavioural assessment, rather than interim plans. Its subjects include behavioural foundations, participation, readability and implementation. UQ identifies experienced PBS practitioners and researchers as its intended users. UQ resource hub.
Use UQ's official downloads for the instrument and instructions. The current full document is labelled 2026; the resource page cites the measure as Vassos and Nankervis, 2025. Keep the actual version used with the review record.
How does NDPRO support a PBSP-QA review?
NDPRO's PBSP-QA review workflow includes a practitioner self-check and a separate supervisor assessment, with the plan documents alongside the assessment. Feedback and review rounds give the team a way to follow requested changes through the review process.
A useful demonstration should make the following distinctions visible:
| Review question | What to inspect in the walkthrough |
|---|---|
| Which plan is being reviewed? | The selected documents and the review round they belong to |
| Whose assessment is displayed? | The practitioner's self-check and the supervisor's assessment, clearly identified |
| What needs attention? | The feedback and requested changes associated with that round |
| What happened after revision? | The next round and the earlier record, without treating copied draft work as a completed assessment |
| What decision was made? | The review outcome, separately from the numeric assessment result |
Bring a fictional comprehensive-plan scenario to a 30-minute NDPRO walkthrough. Confirm the current availability and workflow for your clinic, including reviewer assignment and access to documents. The walkthrough demonstrates the software; contact UQ for training in the instrument itself.
What does the score establish?
The official manual describes 43 scored items and optional additional feedback. It does not provide score categories or a universal pass mark. It recommends an independent rater rather than assessment solely by the plan's author. A self-check should therefore remain identifiable as a self-check. UQ full manual, 2026.
A software approval label, an assessment score and an authorisation decision answer different questions. NDPRO does not grant restrictive-practice authorisation or certify regulatory compliance. Keep the relevant authorisation evidence separate from plan-quality review.
A fictional example: keep the correction visible
A practitioner submits a comprehensive plan. During review, the supervisor asks for one part of the plan to be clarified. A revised document is then prepared.
When another authorised colleague opens the record, they should be able to distinguish the earlier plan, the request and the revision awaiting review. Closing a drafting task should not imply that the supervisor has accepted the change. Use this scenario to examine the product's current behaviour, rather than relying on a screenshot of a completed score.
Is PBSP-QA the same as BIP-QE II or an AI plan checker?
No. UQ describes PBSP-QA as a distinct measure, with validation work involving BIP-QE II. Its separately linked AI feedback resource checks for expected content; that should not be confused with PBSP-QA quality assessment. UQ's descriptions of the tools.
Does the NDIS Commission require every practice to use PBSP-QA?
The Commission references PBSP-QA in its behaviour support assessment and FBA practice guide, including its discussion of participation. The sources reviewed do not establish a universal PBSP-QA requirement. Check the requirements applicable to your work; a reference to the tool does not endorse a particular software supplier.
Plan quality, supervision records and practitioner capability are related but distinct. A practice can review them together while keeping each record's meaning clear.
Prepared by NDPRO editorial. Official sources checked 20 October 2026. The PBSP-QA remains the work of its named authors. This page provides an original workflow explanation and links to the official resource; it does not reproduce the questionnaire or replace its instructions.